More

TV Channel Squeeze Proposed To Pay For Tax Cuts

ANICK JESDANUN   12/16/11 01:53 PM ET   AP

Tv

NEW YORK — Call it the Great Channel Squeeze.

Congress is considering letting cellphone companies pay television stations to give up their frequencies so they can be put to better use for wireless broadband.

The idea is to squeeze over-the-air television, which has few viewers, into a smaller slice of the airwaves. The government would be the broker in the deal and would use some proceeds to fund tax cuts and unemployment benefits.

In years to come, you might see Channel 17 cease to broadcast and Channel 49 take its place, for instance. The empty slot at Channel 49 would then become available for a range of wireless services. That could mean faster downloads for smartphones and tablet computers.

Although vast swaths of broadcast spectrum were freed when television signals converted from analog to digital in 2009, much of that has already been claimed. Technology companies have been clamoring for even more airwaves to satisfy growing consumer appetite for movies, books and websites on mobile devices.

The Federal Communications Commission sees more spectrum as a way to extend high-speed Internet access to places where phone and cable TV companies don't have enough customers to offer landline broadband connections.

"Unless we free up new spectrum for mobile broadband, the looming spectrum crunch risks throttling our mobile economy and frustrating mobile consumers," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement this week.

In a sense, this proposal is a reflection of the times. In the U.S., there are more wireless devices in use than there are people. Meanwhile, various studies show that fewer than 10 percent of households get their TV signals over the air – the rest have cable or satellite service.

The FCC's national broadband plan envisions freeing up 500 megahertz of spectrum over the next 10 years. As much as a quarter of that could come from television.

But many things need to happen first.

For starters, Congress needs to give the FCC authority to do this.

The House included that authority in a bill it passed Tuesday to extend Social Security payroll tax reductions and unemployment coverage. Congress estimates that $16.5 billion could be generated over 10 years by auctioning the broadcast channels and another slice now used for public safety. But President Barack Obama opposes the bill for reasons unrelated to spectrum, and the Senate is working on its own version of the package.

Once the FCC gets authority, it needs to find broadcasters willing to cede their frequencies. Station owners would share in auction proceeds if they turn in their broadcasting licenses and either cease operations or become cable-only channels. They would be compensated to build new towers and make other adjustments if they need to switch frequencies. Congressional revenue estimates already factor that in.

The National Association of Broadcasters isn't sure how many stations would go along.

"Local TV stations are doing pretty well in terms of advertising sales," NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said. "It would surprise me if there would be the sort of stampede to go out of business."

That said, the NAB supports the proposal as long as stations aren't forced or pressured to give up their frequencies. If stations must move, the NAB wants to make sure they aren't the ones paying for it and won't face more interference or any reduction in how far their signals go. Wharton says the House bill includes good protections for broadcasters, but a similar measure in the Senate does not.

Television stations once had Channels 2 to 83, except for 37, which is used for astronomy. Channels 70 to 83, mostly used to retransmit signals from other channels, disappeared in the 1980s and have been reassigned to other uses. Stations gave up Channels 52 to 69 in 2009 as part of a transition to digital broadcasts, and much of that has already been reassigned.

The House-passed bill would allocate some of what's left from the digital transition to build a broadband network for public safety. It would also auction off spectrum that police, firefighters and emergency workers now use for voice communications.

Depending on how many stations want to participate, Channels 31 to 51, excluding 37, could be freed up under the proposed program.

The changes could ultimately take several years and won't be easy. The NAB says nearly 40 percent of the nation's 1,735 full-powered stations now use one of the 20 channels targeted. Broadcasters would have to upgrade equipment, and viewers using antennas would have to find the station's new home.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST MEDIA

Filed by Jack Mirkinson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mike Clark II
memphis, journalism major. nuff said
12:34 PM on 12/19/2011
i thought this is why channels went to HD? and why use mobile broadband when every carrier has caps on them? sooner or later just typing "www" in a phone will put you into overages. no thank you. cell phone companies are nothing more than a monopoly from hades.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
WilliamProc
Black Atheist Monotreme.
12:00 PM on 12/19/2011
When this issue started, it was about taking those channels and using the bandwidth for emergency services. Then, the FCC changed its mind and gave some of it to the cell phone providers. Now its for the dish TV providers.

The question that I have is why the consumer(us) can't get in on this sweet action? Why cant I purchase some of that bandwidth and auction it off to whomever for a profit, rather than letting the FCC give it away for profit?
11:47 AM on 12/19/2011
Remember when TV was free? Why can't it all be free? After all...those airwaves belong to us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
outlier03
11:28 AM on 12/19/2011
Channels 31 - 51 would include my public television station. Amazing coincidence.

Great news at a time when people are dropping cable because they're trying to keep their heads above water with cashflow "and at least I can get OTA tv for free..."

Sheesh. Way to represent your paid constituency, Congress. You suck.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:25 PM on 12/19/2011
Does your PBS station actually broadcast on one of those channels? The virtual channel number that is used for marketing and on-air identification is not necessarily the same as the real radio frequency channel number that the station uses for broadcasting.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
outlier03
09:25 PM on 12/19/2011
Not sure. It's always been channel 45 - even way back before cable when we had a big antenna on the roof.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SpeakupNation
Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the livi
10:48 AM on 12/19/2011
Because of the nature of public airwaves, this seems wrong. Essentially it is privatizing the airwaves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bigshotprof
Pre-moderated for your protection
06:46 AM on 12/19/2011
Gish, bet the Feds kind of wish they had auctioned off the $100+ billion bandwidth those few years ago instead of giving free monopolies to three mega-corporations.
photo
singsingsing
it's not easy being green
05:57 AM on 12/19/2011
Very interesting. I just joined the "10%" three months ago by killing my $80 a month Dish account.
I found myself watching fewer than four Dish feeds. I have an HD antenna on the roof with a better signal than I got from Dish for the over the air signals in my area. The crap Dish and Direct charge big bucks for just isn't worth it any more. So, now the FCC wants to make it even easier for Dish to charge more for less. The American way !
04:34 PM on 12/18/2011
It would just be easier to pay for payroll tax cuts by taxing millionaires the additional 3% the Dems said was necessary to do so...............I thought conservatives believed in keeping the government out of business affairs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:58 PM on 12/18/2011
The government has to be involved in the business of broadcast TV because it is the government that licenses the broadcasters to use the airwaves, which are public resource, not private property.
08:01 PM on 12/18/2011
The government regulates broadcast TV..........That is what the FCC is for.........But there is no charge to broadcasters for their license...........So it is purely a governmental, not business, relationship the government has with broadcasters............And that is because the airwaves, as you state, are public property..............Selling the airwaves makes them private property and that is something the government must not do.................Need money to pay for tax cuts? Tax rich people more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bigshotprof
Pre-moderated for your protection
06:51 AM on 12/19/2011
The GOP only wants to keep the government out of business affairs when interferring in business affairs hurts business. Think of it this way: in this anti-incumbant climate and this jobs economy, where will the next generation of corporate board members come from. This isn't a policy statement; it's a group resume.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:16 PM on 12/18/2011
This is all about trying to eliminate broadcast TV. The best frequencies for digital broadcasting are the UHF frequencies, channels 14 through 51. Many of the stations with VHF channel numbers 2-13 are actually broadcasting on UHF frequencies because VHF frequencies, especially the frequencies for channels 2 through 7, are not good for digital broadcasting. If the frequencies that belong to channels 31 through 51 are eliminated, a lot of broadcast stations in major markets will be forced to use frequencies that cause reception problems.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
08:04 PM on 12/17/2011
Congress would just LOVE to get rid of mass media altogether if they could.
Osusuki
KO fan
01:03 PM on 12/18/2011
I haven't a clue why. Mass media has been licking Congressional boots like faithful puppies for the past decade. When's the last time you heard a real question on Face the Nation or Meet the Press?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
07:50 PM on 12/18/2011
That's the media they control through Corporate ownership. But they still want to rid themselves of the threat of an independent media ala internet
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:18 PM on 12/18/2011
They don't want to get rid of it. They just want to force you to pay a lot of money for it, and they want to make sure that the Republican point of view dominates.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gary Storch
Democracy is NOT for Sale!
09:53 AM on 12/17/2011
AS the cost of watching the TV and using your cell phone continually rises until you can't use the product any longer.
We are getting squeezed and sit around and do nothing!
This just may be YOUR last chance!
SUPPORT "OCCUPY"!
Don't sit on the couch and gain weight.
05:33 AM on 12/17/2011
Spectrum (which is the property of the people as a whole) is like land, they aren't making any more of it.

Whoever first had, and was able to get the government to consider, the idea of actually selling it, instead of just leasing it, should have been taken out and horsewhipped, or worse, as a discouragement to anyone else with equally stupid and short-sighted ideas.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:51 PM on 12/18/2011
The broadcast frequencies are NOT owned by the broadcasters. The frequencies are owned by We The People collectively and overseen by the FCC, which is overseen by the people's elected representatives in Congress. Broadcasters are merely licensed to use the frequencies. The frequencies are a public good, not private property.
11:07 PM on 12/18/2011
That's why the phrase "operate in the public interest" figures prominently in federal laws and regulations regarding the airwaves.
05:29 AM on 12/17/2011
The move to digital TV was supposed to help free up that spectrum everybody said the first responders needed right after 9-11.

How's that working out for them?
photo
Spock
Milky Way Pedestrian
12:50 PM on 12/17/2011
I'm very underwhelmed by digital broadcasts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:01 PM on 12/18/2011
They look good, but they are often less reliable than analog broadcasts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:56 AM on 12/17/2011
When our modern communication signals reach the next civilization or so over in the galactic neighborhood. I wonder what that civilizations' version of SETI will hear when they swing their receiver dishes our way? Will they say, "hmm, found an unusually noisy G type star. Oh well, let's move on to the next star shall we."?
ydrittmann
Vitter patronizes women.
01:50 AM on 12/17/2011
They will see an episode of "Whitney" and destroy us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SpeakupNation
Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the livi
10:47 AM on 12/19/2011
Probably torturing us first as revenge for torturing them....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:24 PM on 12/17/2011
They will retrofit their planet with rockets and fly away as far as they can from the solor system once they learn about the republicans.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:09 PM on 12/19/2011
solor = solar
12:10 AM on 12/17/2011
If the citizens get a service for free we really need to reconsider that and should probably thinks about ending that in favor a the pay as you go system since it is a great way to spread the wealth of the community around more evenly. It is also good for democracy as it lessens the confusion that is created by too many local news and information sources. The cable news shows are better at getting the local message out anyway.
05:27 AM on 12/17/2011
This isn't about citizens getting a service for free, this is about commercial entities (broadcasters) getting to use public property, the airwaves, as long as they operate "in the public interest".

The only real service here is the one for which the broadcasters get paid, attracting eyeballs which might watch the advertising, just like a newspaper or magazine gets you to read it in hopes that the advertising will catch your eye as well.
09:42 PM on 12/17/2011
sarcasm, my fellow citizen. A free press and the availability of news and information on a local scale is important to a free society and the US no longer has that in most of it's markets. The corporate owner are either afraid of law suits or just don't give a damn.